500 
8173 


ustin  Addresses 

Delivered  at  the 

Iniversity  of  Texas 

January,  1917 


By 

RABBI   MARTIN  ZIELONKA 

Temple  Mt.  Sinai 
EL  PASO,  TEXAS 


Stack 
Annex 


CONTENTS 


Page 
I — Common   Ground   . 1 

II — Morality   Versus   Legality 5 

III— Tyranny  of  The  Majority 3 

IV— The  Power  of  Faith 11 

V — The    Place   of   Religion    in   a 

Democracy 14 


Common  Ground 

Whoever  emphasizes  the  particular 
at  the  expense  of  the  common,  the 
sectarian  instead  of  the  universal, 
breeds  discontent  and  discourages  uni- 
ty. There  may  have  been  a  time  when 
progress  demanded  the  literal  devo- 
tion to  a  creed  but  that  time  has 
passed. 

He  who  proclaims  his  faith  as  the 
only  one  that  leads  to  salvation,  and 
sends  to  perdition  all  who  disagree, 
is  living  in  the  wrong  age.  When  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  convened,  no  single  faith 
was  ready  to  give  way  to  another  and 
none  were  willing  for  others  to  gain 
an  advantage.  Brancroft  wisely  re- 
marks, "American  law  was  the  growth 
of  necessity,  not  the  wisdom  of  indi- 
vidual." And  if  such  were  the  con- 
ditions in  those  early  days,  what  can 
we  expect  today,  when  faiths  are 
counted  by  the  hundreds,  and  when 
each  looks  to  a  constitutional  guaran- 
tee for  its  right  to  worship  God  ac- 
cording to  its  dictates. 

As  thinking  men  and  women,  we 
cannot  agree  upon  everything.  Life 
would  lose  its  zest  were  we  to  think 
and  act  alike.  But  we  can  sympathize 
with  each  other's  views;  we  can  be 
tolerant.  You  and  I  can  be  the  best 
of  friends  without  knowing  to  what 
faith  the  other  swears  allegiance,  and 
we- can  fulfill  our  duties  as  citizens  of 
this  great  republic  without  parading 
our  religious  beliefs. 

There  is  a  common  platform  upon 
which  we  can  met  as  citizens,  and 
which  should  be  the  guiding  spirit  of 

50084? 


your  lives  as  well  as  mine.  You  may 
recall  the  words  of  Nathan,  the  wise, 
to  the  friar, 

"Indeed!  The  very  thing  that  makes 
me  seem 

Christian  to  you,  makes  you  a  Jew 
to  me."— (Act  iv  Sc.  7.) 

What  is  the  common  ground  upon 
which  we  can  meet? 

First  and  foremost  is  the  belief  in 
God,  in  a  Being  not  ourselves  that 
tends  for  righteousness.  More  and 
more  do  we  learn  that  the  curse  of 
civilization  is  the  self-made  man  who 
worships  his  Creator.  Though  we  may 
regulate  our  destiny,  we  cannot  con- 
trol it.  Heine,  in  his  "History  of  Re- 
ligion and  Philosophy  in  Germany" 
tells  us  that  Kant  postulated  a  deity 
in  his  practical  system  although  he 
had  exploded  deity  in  his  theoretical 
system,  because  his  man  servant 
Lampe  looked  dismally  at  the  con- 
clusions of  pure  reason,  and  the  phi- 
losopher was  moved  to  compassion. 
The  same  practical  conditions  confront 
every  man.  It  should  not  matter 
whether  I  worship  the  Supreme  Be- 
ing as  Jehovah  and  you  see  Him  sym- 
bolized in  Jesus,  so  long  as  you  do 
not  try  to  force  your  teaching  on  me 
and  I  do  not  try  to  force  my  teach- 
ing on  you.  Lip  service  and  confes- 
sion of  faith  do  not  make  God  real  in 
our  lives.  It  has  been  well  said,  "What 
a  man  believes  may  be  ascertained 
not  from  his  creed,  but  from  the  as- 
sumptions on  which  he  habitually 
acts."  Now  if  we  act  on  the  assump- 
tion of  a  God,  we  have  common  ground 
for  broad  fellowship. 

And  the  natural  deduction  from 
this  first  principle  of  our  common 
ground  is  the  Brotherhood  of  Man. 
Not  a  brotherhood  that  is  limited  to 
the  fellowship  of  a  particular  church 
or  synagog,  but  a  brotherhood  that  in- 
cludes mankind.  If  God  be  the  Father, 


and  the  Father  be  One,  then  all  men 
must  be  His  children.  That  was  an 
astute  remark  of  an  ancient  rabbi  who 
declared  that  the  profoundest  senti- 
ment of  the  Bible  was  found  in  the 
fifth  chapter  of  Genesis  which  de- 
clares, "this  is  the  book  of  the  gener- 
ations of  man,"  because  here  is  used 
the  singular  'man'  to  designate  a  com- 
mon origin  of  prince  and  pauper,  of 
nobleman  and  mendicant. 

It  matters  little  whether  we  quote, 
"thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self", from  the  nineteenth  chapter  of 
Leviticus  or  from  the  New  Testament, 
so  long  as  we  realize  the  command  in 
our  lives. 

It  matters  little  whether  we  quote 
the  golden  rule  in  the  positive  form 
of  Jesus  or  adopt  the  negative  form 
of  Hillel,  who  lived  before  Jesus,  so 
long  as  this  rule  is  truly  golden  in  the 
sunshine  and  'happiness  it  brings  to 
mankind. 

You  and  I  agree  that  we  are  some- 
thing more  than  flesh  and  bones,  that 
there  rests  within  each  one  a  spark  of 
the  divine  Father,  which  He  takes 
unto  Himself  in  His  own  time.  The 
difference  between  man  and  animal  is 
not  only  the  intellect  but  also  the 
longing  for  a  realization  of  life  be- 
yond this  mundane  sphere.  And  this 
future  life  does  not  depend  upon  the 
recital  of  any  particular  creed. 

You  and  I  may  add  to  these  funda- 
mental thoughts  whatever  our  history, 
our  environment  or  our  study  may 
deem  best,  but  we  can  agree  upon 
foundations.  Our  additions  make  us 
Congregationalists,  Baptists,  Presby- 
terians, Catholics  or  Jews,  but  our 
additions  should  never  be  emphasized 
at  the  expense  of  our  common  ground. 

When  you  and  I  meet  as  citizens 
let  us  strive  for  the  common  good  and 
not  for  the  express  benefit  of  a  partic- 
ular class  or  creed.  Our  first  object 


should  be  honest  and  upright  citizen- 
ship. 

A  thousand  roads  may  lead  to  Rome, 
but  an  infinite  number  of  roads  will 
lead  to  our  Father  in  heaven  because 
He  is  infinite.  Thinking  men  may 
agree  upon  a  common  ground  but  no 
two  thinking  men  will  agree  exactly 
upon  the  details  of  their  belief. 

When  all  is  said  and  done  do  not 
the  words  of  Nathan,  the  wise,  come 
back  to  us, 

"I  cannot  venture  to  decide  between 
Rings  which  the  Father  hath  express- 
ly made 

To  baffle  those  who  would  distinguish 
them." 

Let  us  then  do  our  best  here  and 
now,  each  working  for  the  benefit  of 
all  and  none  working  for  the  sole  ben- 
efit of  one. 


Morality  Versus 
Legality 

Adjustments  along  social,  religious, 
industrial  and  business  lines  are  ap- 
parent everywhere.  The  recent  threat- 
ened tieing  up  of  our  railways  system 
and  with  it  the  paralyzing  of  all  indus- 
try; the  strikes  in  the  coal  fields  and 
garment  industries  are  simply  straws 
which  show  the  way  in  which  the  wind 
is  blowing  and  this  wind  is  not  a  good 
omen. 

Many  reasons  are  assigned  for  this 
condition — general  unrest  caused  by 
international  strife;  increased  cost  of 
living;  ever  higher  standards  of  liv- 
ing; decrease  of  illiteracy;  the  grant- 
ing of  fundamental  rights  to  laboring 
men  with  the  result  of  their  demand- 
ing ever  greater  rights. 

Such  explanations  are  ture  in  part; 
they  do  not  reach  the  fundamental. 
A  tremendous  change  in  industry  has 
taken  place  within  less  than  a  century 
and  this  tremendous  change  has  re- 
acted upon  mankind.  No  such  change 
could  possibly  take  place  without  leav- 
ing an  indelible  impression  on  men. 
And  this  impression  has  been  of  a 
dual  nature.  The  men  of  power  and 
means  felt  the  strength  of  their  po- 
sition and  refused  to  relinquish  any  of 
their  power;  the  laboring  man,  realiz- 
ing a  subordinate  position,  recognized 
the  dignity  of  labor,  the  necessity  of 
labor  in  the  economy  of  the  world,  and 
demanded  an  ever  greater  but  just 
portion  of  the  results  of  his  labor. 

And  this  tremendous  change  has 
brought  a  change  of  emphasis  in  hu- 


man  affairs.  The  moral  question  was 
at  one  time  a  vital  question.  Right 
and  wrong  were  uppermost  in  men's 
minds.  Today  this  is  changed:  today 
the  question  has  become  "Am  I  legally 
right  or  legally  wrong:  am  I  within 
the  law?" 

And  this  is  true  of  both  sides  of 
our  dispute.  Labor  seeks  to  be  within 
the  law  in  every  effort  to  improve 
its  conditions  and  if  these  conditions 
cannot  be  changed  under  existing 
laws,  then  the  law  must  be  so  changed 
as  to  give  ample  protection  to  labor. 
Employers  want  to  be  within  the 
law  and  should  developing  public  opin- 
ion demand  certain  laws  which  might 
force  a  readjustment  in  factory  or 
mine  then  must  such  legal  enact- 
ments be  opposed  no  matter  how 
just  or  how  much  they  may  add  to 
public  welfare.  It  has  become  a  ques- 
tion of  Morality  versus  Legality;  it  is 
a  conflict  of  two  standards  and  the 
lower  standard  must  give  way  to  a 
higher  standard. 

The  railway  brotherhoods  may  be 
legally  right  in  refusing  to  arbitrate 
their  differences  and  threatening  to 
tie  up  the  industrial  life  of  the  nation, 
but  are  they  morally  right? 

The  factory  boss  may  be  legally 
right  in  employing  immature  children 
in  the  manufacture  of  his  wares,  but 
is  he  morally  right? 

The  civilization  of  the  future  de- 
pends on  the  boys  and  girls  of  today, 
and  if  we  sap  the  vitality  of  these 
youths  how  can  we  expect  to  rear 
another  generation  which  shall  be 
physically,  morally  and  mentally 
strong?  The  moral  rights  of  the  en- 
tire future  should  be  greater  than  the 
legal  rights  of  the  present.  "The 
sins  of  the  fathers  are  visited  upon 
the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth 
generation."  We  cannot  deny  this. 
Entrenched  behind  legal  rights  each 


side  continues  the  struggle:  now  giv- 
ing this  reason,  now  giving  that  ex- 
cuse. The  struggle  continues  and  will 
continue  so  long  as  it  is  simply  a 
question  of  legal  rights  and  all  moral 
implications  are  forgotten. 

And  what  will  be  the  end  ?  I  can 
see  but  one  and  I  feel  certain  that  his- 
tory gives  but  one  answer.  Laws 
change  with  each  generation;  legal 
rights  are  simply  temporary  rights. 
Men  may  struggle  against  the  gradual 
approach  of  legal  rights  to  the  higher 
demands  of  the  moral  code,  but  they 
struggle  in  vain.  The  ten  command- 
ments, the  moral  implications  of  the 
nineteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus,  the 
flaming  words  of  the  prophets  have 
become  the  heritage  of  mankind  and 
must  sooner  or  later  be  reflected  in 
all  laws  dealing  with  the  relations 
of  men.  Today  it  may  be  a  struggle 
of  "Morality  versus  Legality";  to- 
morrow it  must  be  an  adjustment  of 
legal  enactments  to  the  great  moral 
code  underlying  our  civilization. 

For  this  religious  task  the  college 
man  and  woman  must  gird  his  loins; 
it  is  a  struggle  worth  while,  a  strug- 
gle for  the  best  in  men  and  women; 
a  struggle  for  the  light  which  must 
ultimately  conquer  all  darkness. 


Tyranny  of  The 
Majority 

Wealth  and  luxury  are  sapping  the 
vitality  of  our  nation;  the  cankerous 
growth  of  discontent  has  eaten  deeply 
into  our  vitals.  Salvation  is  possible 
only  thru  a  saving  remnant. 

What  is  there  beneath  the  discon- 
tent seen  on  all  sides  of  the  United 
States  but  the  sudden  growth  of 
wealth  due  to  increased  trade;  the 
increase  of  luxury  versus  the  cry  of 
the  poor  for  a  fair  share  of  the  added 
wealth 

A  cry  for  greater  democracy  is 
sounded  in  every  quarter  of  the  na- 
tion. The  people  as  individuals  would 
have  more  to  say  about  the  govern- 
ment and  its  needed  regulations.  The 
magazines  and  newspapers  are  filled 
with  articles  and  editorials  upon  the 
initiative,  referendum,  the  recall  of  ju- 
diciary decisions.  These  are  the  cures 
advocated  for  our  disease.  Few  will 
deny  that  these  may  bring  good  re- 
sults if  used  with  proper  safeguards. 
But  will  they  not  undermine  the  basic 
principles  of  our  government?  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  absolute  freedom 
and  absolute  democracy;  there  is  on- 
ly such  freedom  and  such  democracy 
as  is  circumscribed  by  laws  enacted 
for  the  common  weal. 

These  seek  to  enforce  the  power  of 
numbers.  They  make  possible  violence 
by  mob  and  mob  rule.  We  are  un- 
consciously striving  to  exploit  the  ty- 
ranny of  the  majority,  forgetting  the 
minority  and  its  rights  guaranteed  by 
the  constitution.  The  founders  of  the 


nation  never  intended  to  establish  a 
direct  government  but  a  representa- 
tative  government. 

There  is  nothing  we  need  fear  more 
than  the  tyranny  of  the  majority. 
Our  country  is  so  large,  its  inhabi- 
tants of  such  diverse  natures,  religi- 
ously and  ethically,  that  right  in  one 
part  of  the  country  may  be  wrong  in 
another  part:  the  will  of  the  majority 
here  may  be  the  will  of  a  weak  mi- 
nority elsewhere. 

We  have  adequate  laws  to  overcome 
the  evil  in  our  midst,  but  we  do  not 
take  the  time  to-  perform  our  duty  as 
citizens  at  the  polls.  New  laws  and 
experimenting  with  new  forms  will 
not  make  the  citizen  better  and  more 
willing  to  use  his  power  for  good. 
What  we  need  is  not  more  laws  and  a 
more  complicated  procedure,  but  new- 
er and  higher  ideals  of  citizenship 
and  a  more  honest  enforcement  of 
exisisting  laws. 

Let  us  take  a  concrete  example.  A 
few  years  ago  the  supreme  court  of 
the  State  of  Illinois  in  a  suit  submit- 
ted by  some  catholic  parents,  decreed 
that  singing  of  devotional  songs,  read- 
ing of  the  bible,  and  reciting  the 
"Lord's  prayer"  was  religious  wor- 
ship and  prohibited  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  state  which  guaranteed 
the  separation  of  church  and  state. 
Following  this  decision  a  howl  was 
heard  throughout  the  State  of  Illinois. 
Church  conference  after  church  con- 
ference passed  resolutions  denouncing 
the  same;  petitions  after  petitions,  de- 
crying the  court,  were  signed  and  for- 
warded to  the  governor.  How  long 
do  y.ou  think  would  this  just  decision 
have  remained  valid  and  the  rights  of 
the  minority,  as  guaranteed  by  the 
constitution  respected,  if  the  tyranny 
of  the  majority  had  ruled  and  num- 
bers instead  of  right  had  determined 
the  issue. 


What  we  need  today  is  a  saving 
remnant  that  shall  steer  the  ship  of 
state  away  from  the  Scylla  and 
Carybdis  of  destruction  out  into  the 
placid  waters  of  representative  gov- 
ernment, where  all  men,  having  their 
rights  guaranteed,  will  have  these 
rights  respected.  What  'we  need  today 
is  a  saving  remnant  that  shall  recog- 
nize its  duty  as  citizens,  and  do  its 
duty  as  citizens.  Then  will  we  be 
free  to  rise  from  strength  to  strength 
without  fear  or  favor,  giving  unto  all 
men  their  just  deserts,  nothing  more 
and  nothing  less. 


The  Power  of  Faith 

The  pendulum  of  a  clock  swings 
as  far  in  one  direction  as  in  the  other; 
human  thought  gives  expression  to 
both  extremes  in  every  period  of  his- 
tory. The  materialism  of  Hobbs  is 
followed  by  the  mysticism  of  Locke 
and  the  Utilitarian  philosophy  of 
Pragmatism  runs  parallel  with  mystic 
Christian  Science'. 

With  the  increased  importance  of 
the  manufacturer  and  the  merchant, 
the  philosophy  of  materialism  gained 
ground;  faith  was  ready  to  be  cast 
aside.  Men  judged  life  and  actions 
not  by  motives,  but  by  results,  not  by 
broad  principles,  but  by  temporary 
facts.  The  well  springs  of  idealism 
had  dried  up  and  cold-blooded  business 
principles  ruled  in  all  matters.  Men 
scoffed  at  idealism;  religion  became  a 
mocking;  those  who  sought  to  realize 
ideals  were  laughed  at  as  dreamers. 
The  ledger  became  the  bible  of  life  and 
utilitarianism  the  basis  of  action. 

Little  wonder  then  that  the  tide  'has 
turned!  Having  given  materialism  a 
fair  trial  human  thought  has  turned 
to  the  other  extreme.  Faith  and  re- 
ligion are  now  looked  at  with  more 
charitable  eyes;  the  minds  and  hearts 
of  men  are  more  open  to  truth  and  a 
consideration  of  the  deeper  problems 
of  life. 

We  are  more  than  creatures  of  cir- 
cumstances. Our  actions  are  gov- 
erned by  more  than  our  intellectual 
training.  We  bear  the  inheritance  of 
generations  long  passed  to  the  great 


beyond  and  we  cannot  completely  rid 
ourselves  of  this  influence. 

All  materialistic  philosophy  fails 
before  the  power  of  faith  in  ourselves. 
"I  will"  and  the  victory  is  half  won; 
"I  can't"  and  failure  is  evident.  The 
mind  finds  expression  not  only  in 
words  but  also  in  deeds;  not  only  in 
my  deeds  but  in  the  deeds  of  others. 
The  patient  cannot  be  cured  if  he 
does  not  have  faith  in  his  doctor,  and 
many  wondrous  cures  have  been  per- 
formed by  a  simple  solution  of  sugar 
and  water  because  men  really  be- 
lieved they  would  be  cured.  Many  men 
have  passed  to  the  great  beyond  be- 
cause they  had  not  the  willpower  to 
make  a  final  rally.  The  seeming  mir- 
acles performed  at  many  places  of 
pilgrimage  are  facts  and  easily  ex- 
plained in  this  way. 

I  call  your  attention  to  this  thought 
with  the  hope  of  interesting  you  in 
the  power  of  faith.  The  man  who  be- 
lieves in  himself  will  in  the  end  force 
others  to  believe  in  him;  the  man  who 
has  faith  and  power  to  exercise  it 
cannot  be  moved. 

This  is  an  exceedingly  liberal  age. 
Men  are  throwing  off  the  shackles  of 
creeds  and  dogmas  and  asserting  the 
right  to  evolve  their  own  solution  of 
the  world  mystery  and,  having  thought 
it  out,  to  live  it.  Yet,  with  it  all, 
there  are  thousands  upon  thousands 
whose  minds  have  reached  definite 
conclusions  concerning  their  religious 
ideas,  yet,  week  in  and  week  out, 
they  assemble  to  repeat  a  creed  whose 
dicta  their  brains  cannot  accept  and 
whose  words  can  be  uttered  only  with 
a  mental  reservation.  The  hand  of 
the  past  is  upon  them  and  faith  is 
more  powerful  than  reason.  The  at- 
tempts to  bring  about  reforms  in  all 
our  large  cities  have  failed  to  a  great 
extent  because  men  have  inherited  a 
laisez-faire  spirit  and  are  satisfied  so 


long  as  no  one  interferes  with  their 
business.  If  democracy  is  a  failure, 
as  some  claim,  then  it  is  due  more  to 
the  fact  that  we  do  not  recognize  the 
power  of  faith,  than  to  any  other  sin- 
gle reason. 

It  is  well  and  good  to  strive  for  the 
material  ends  of  life;  men  deserve 
commendation  who  strive  to  supply 
their  dear  ones  with  more  than  the 
necessities,  but  it  is  equally  necessary 
that  we  impress  upon  our  offspring 
the  power  of  faith — faith  in  God, 
faith  in  our  fellowmen,  and  faith  in 
ourselves.  Without  these  this  world 
is  very  dreary;  without  it  our  life  is 
a  wilderness,  instead  of  a  garden.  We 
may  not  be  able  to  fathom  the  depths 
of  the  human  soul,  the  human  heart 
and  the  human  mind,  but  everywhere 
about  us  we  can  see  the  influence  of 
our  thoughts,  our  actions  and  our 
words.  Progress  may  be  measured 
by  standards  of  wealth,  but  it  should 
also  be  measured  by  standards  of 
character.  "A  guilty  thought  is  al- 
most as  criminal  as  a  guilty  deed," 
should  be  branded  on  the  minds  of  the 
growing  generation,  for  it  is  frought 
with  the  deepest  meaning.  He  who 
has  pure  thoughts  will  live  a  pure  life 
and  he  who  allows  his  thoughts  to 
run  riot  will  lead  a  life  filled  with 
danger. 

The  phenomena  of  the  mind  may 
cause  us  fear,  they  may  arouse  with- 
in us  feelings  of  distrust;  the  devel- 
opment of  those  inmate  powers  that 
control  the  actions  of  others  may 
cause  us  dread,  yet,  if  we  will  consider 
and  study,  if  we  will  only  remember 
that  we  are  learning  more  and  more 
about  man  and  God,  as  year  follows 
year,  then  will  "our  faith  triumph 
o'er  our  fears,"  make  us  more  chari- 
table to  the  faults  of  our  neighbors 
because  we  have  learned  our  own  de- 
fects. 


The  Place  of  Religion 
In  A  Democracy 

Every  now  and  then  the  country  is 
aroused  by  an  attempt  to  read  God  or 
Jesus  into  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States;  every  now  and  then 
the  discussion  waxes  warm  as  to 
whether  or  not  this  is  a  "Christian" 
country.  Every  call  for  a  state  con- 
stitutional convention — to  give  more 
modern  basic  principles  for  state  gov- 
ernments— reveals  a  concerted  effort 
to  place  the  name  of  God  or  the  Chris- 
tian Savior  into  the  new  constitution, 
and  make  bible  reading  or  some  form 
of  religious  exercises  a  part  of  the  ed- 
ucational system.  The  smaller  the 
city  or  village,  the  more  bitter  and 
acrimonious  becomes  the  debate  when 
the  rights  or  minorities  are  urged. 
Because  of  this  continued  emphasis  on 
the  subject,  I  deem  it  wise  to  discuss 
"The  Place  of  Religion  in  a  Democ- 
racy" in  order  that  I  may  interpret 
for  you,  as  a  representative  of  a  mi- 
nority faith,  our  conception  of  the 
place  of  religion  in  a  democracy  and 
allow  you  to  draw  such  conclusions  as 
you  deem  proper  about  our  rights  in 
the  matter.  In  order  to  do  justice  to 
my  subject,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
outline  the  causes  resulting  in  the 
omission  of  the  name  of  the  Christian 
Savior  or  the  name  of  God,  from  our 
constitution,  and,  which  finally  ended 
with  religious  liberty  guaranteed  to 
all.  I  do  this,  not  with  any  idea  of 
presenting  new  or  startling  facts, 
nor  even  teaching  anything  that  is 
not  well  known,  but  simply  to  refresh 


your  memories  about  facts  known  to 
all  students  of  American  history. 

Let  me  begin  by  making  the  posi- 
tive statement  —  full  religious  liber- 
ty as  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  was  not  the  re- 
sult of  long,  premeditated  effort,  but 
„  rather,  of  accident.  "American  law 
was  the  growth  of  necessity,  not  the 
wisdom  of  individuals"  says  Bancroft. 
And  yet  this  development  through 
necessity  has  been  characterized  by 
Bryce  as  "the  most  salient,  of  all  the 
differences  between  the  Old  World 
and  the  New."  And  Ranke  acknowl- 
edges that  "the  whole  life  and  char- 
acter of  western  Christendom  consists 
of  the  constant  action  and  counterac- 
tion of  Church  and  State." 

Since  such  good  authorities  agree 
-as  to  the  value  of  this  experiment  in 
government,  let  us  examine  its  orig- 
in more  closely.  But  let  us  not  at- 
tempt to  read  into  the  history  of  the 
New  England  settlements  some  prin- 
ciples which  pervade  our  government. 
Those  Pilgrim  leaders  need  no  apol- 
ogy. They  followed  the  light  as  they 
saw  it.  Their  differing  religious 
convictions  brought  the  numerous 
New  England  states  into  existence. 
It  is  a  strange  fact,  but  nevertheless 
true,  that  each  new  New  England  set- 
tlement was  organized  by  exiles,  for 
conscience  sake,  from  one  of  the  older 
states.  These  men  came  over  with 
an  intense  love  for  their  faith.  They 
were  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  ba- 
sic principle  of  the  Augsburg  peace — 
"cujus  regio,  ejus  religio,"  'the  relig- 
ion of  the  community  is  determined 
by  the  religion  of  the  prince.'  Since 
they  could  not  give  assent  to  -the  re- 
ligion of  their  prince,  they  sought 
new  lands  where  they  might  be  the 
princes  designating  that  religion. 

It  is  therefore  not  surprising  to 
find  President  Oakes  of  Harvard  de- 


claring-  in  1673 — "I  look  upon  unboun- 
ded Toleration  as  the  first-born  of  all 
abominations":  Of  Governor  Dudley 
proclaiming — "God  forbid  that  our 
love  for  the  truth  should  be  grown  so 
cold  that  we  shall  tolerate  error":  Of 
Berkeley  giving  thanks  that  "there 
are  no  free  schools  nor  printing  and. 
I  hope  we  shall  not  have  these  hun- 
dred years,  for  learning  has  brought 
disobedience  and  heresy  and  sects  in 
the  world."  And  Blackstone,  a  con- 
gregational minister  of  Boston,  naive- 
ly pointed  out  the  inconsistency  of 
the  Pilgrims  when  he  said  that  he 
left  England  "because  he  did  not  like 
the  Lord  Bishops";  now  he  could  not 
remain  with  the  colonists  "because 
he  would  not  be  under  the  Lord 
Brethren." 

Nor  would  I  criticise  the  harshness 
of  the  faith  of  these  earlier  settlers; 
I  disagree  with  them  in  toto  as  to 
their  acts.  It  was  a  period  of  intoler- 
ance to  all  who  disagreed  and  full 
tolerance  to  all  who  were  in  accord. 
Today  we  may  scan  their  acts  as  step- 
ping stones  to  liberty.  In  midwinter 
the  Massachusetts  colony  drove  Rog- 
er Williams  into  the  primeval  forest 
of  Rhode  Island,  but  it  gave  him  an 
opportunity  to  found  his  "lively  ex- 
periment" and  for  this  we  should  be 
thankful.  Endicott  put  the  dissenting 
Brownes  upon  a  ship  and  returned 
them  to  England;  non-attendance  at 
church  services  was  punishable  with 
a  fine  in  nearly  every  colony  at  some 
time  or  another.  Baptist  preachers 
were  beaten  and  imprisoned  in  Vir- 
ginia and  Stuyvesant  asked  his  com- 
pany that  no  Jews  be  permitted  "to 
infest  New  Netherlands."  Strange  as 
these  incidents  seem  to  us  they  were 
simply  the  honest  results  of  the  relig- 
ious principles  of  the  day;  simply  the 
dark  spots  gradually  revealing  the 


necessity  of  turning  on  the  light     of 
freedom. 

And  enticing  as  would  be  a  study  of 
the  rise  of  religious  toleration,  I  must 
'pass  it  over  with  only  a  few  remarks. 
Even  so  great  a  statesman  as  Disra- 
eli declared  as  late  as  1868  at  the  dis- 
establishment of  the  Irish  church  that 
it  was  "destroying  that  sacred  union 
between  church  and  state  which  has 
hitherto  been  the  chief  means  of  our 
civilization  and  is  the  only  safeguard 
for  our  religious  liberty."  Thomas 
Paine  was  far  more  correct  in  declar- 
ing "toleration  is  not  the  opposite  of 
intolerance,  but  is  the  counterfeit  of 
it.  Both  are  despotisms.  The  one  as- 
sumes to  itself  the  right  of  withhold- 
ing liberty  of  conscience;  the  other 
of  granting  it."  Toleration  is  a  denial 
of  the  very  principle  underlying  the 
idea  of  religious  liberty  and  Lord 
Stanhope,  in  1827  epitomized  the  de- 
velopment of  religious  liberty  in  the 
United  States  and  in  every  other  coun- 
try when  he  said  "The  time  was, 
when  toleration  was  craved  by  disent- 
ers  as  a  boon;  it  is  now  demanded  as 
a  right,  but  the  time  will  come  when 
it  will  be  spurned  as  an  insult." 

Toleration  gradually  took  the  place 
of  open  opposition.  At  least  it  be- 
came more  apparent  each  year  that 
dissension  could  not  be  downed  by 
oppression  and  legal  enactments 
were  no  guarantee  for  purity  of  reli- 
gious belief.  Although  the  laws  re- 
mained on  the  statute  books,  they 
were  not  enforced.  Massachusetts,  for 
instance,  tolerated  Episcopalians  and 
Baptists;  and  New  York  and  Virginia 
tolerated  the  Presbyterians. 

A  general  condition  of  toleration 
prevailed  at  the  breaking  out  of  the 
American  revolution.  Roger  Wil- 
liams continued  firm  in  "his  lively 
experiment;"  Madison  had  opposed 
the  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights  of  1776 


because  of  "the  dangerous  implica- 
tion in  the  word  toleration"  and  Jeff- 
erson had  boldly  declared  "it  is  error 
alone  that  needs  the  support  of  gov- 
ernment. Truth  can  stand  by  itself." 

At  the  time  the  Union  was  formed 
— only  two  out  of  the  thirteen  states 
conceded  full  and  perfect  freedom  by 
law — namely,  Rhode  Island  and  Vir- 
ginia. Protestantism  was  insisted  on 
by  six — New  Hampshire,  Connecti- 
cut, New  Jersey,  the  two  Carolinas 
and  Georgia:  the  Christian  religion 
was  demanded  by  two — Delaware  and 
Maryland.  Assent  to  the  divine  inspi- 
ration of  the  Bible  was  required  by 
four — Pennsylvania,  Delaware  and 
the  two  Carolinas.  Belief  in  heaven 
and  hell  was  asked  by  two — Pennsyl- 
vania and  South  Carolina:  three 
states  excluded  clergymen  from  public 
office — New  York,  Maryland  and 
South  Carolina;  two  states  emphasiz- 
ed belief  in  One  God — Pennsylvania 
and  South  Carilona;  while  assent  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  was  necess- 
ary in  Delaware;  and  in  five  states — 
New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Con- 
necticutt,  Maryland  and  South  Caro- 
lina there  were  religious  establish- 
ments. 

Delegates  from  states  with  such 
divergent  views  on  religious  matters, 
met  to  form  articles  of  confederation 
and  jointly  to  meet  a  common  foe.  Is 
it  any  wonder  that  religious  questions 
were  almost  taboo  and  that  congress 
in  1774,  seeking  to  induce  Quebec  to 
join  in  opposition,  should  declare — 
"all  old  religious  jealousies  are  con- 
demned as  low  minded  infirmities?" 
At  the  dawn  of  the  revolution  the 
colonies  were  ready  for  a  "religious 
liberty  untrammeled  by  the  civil  law, 
in  which  the  terms  conformity  and 
dissent  would  become  forever  inappli- 
cable." And  thus  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  Major  Lusk  of  Massachusetts 


"shuddered  at  the  idea  that  Roman 
Catholics,  Baptists  and  Pagans  might 
be  introduced  into  office  and  that 
popery  and  the  Inquisition  might  be 
established  in  America"  they  adopted 
as  part  of  their  constitution — "no  re- 
ligious test  shall  ever  be  required  as 
a  qualification  to  any  office  or  pub- 
lic trust  under  the  United  States 
(VI-3),  and  the  first  amendment  ex- 
plicitly states — "Congress  shall  make 
no  law  respecting  an  establishment 
of  religion  or  prohibiting  the  free 
exercise  therof." 

Yet  with  these  constitutional  guar- 
antees, and  the  lesson  which  history 
brings  about  the  tolerations  and  per- 
secutions of  the  early  period  of  our 
government,  we  must  not  forget  that 
the  federal  constitution  applies  only 
to  the  federal  sphere.  There  is  no 
force  of  law  against  a  religious  estab- 
lishment in  any  state,  should  such  a 
state,  in  adopting  a  new  constitution, 
write  therein  an  established  church. 
The  government  cannot  prevent  such 
things.  We  may  honestly  believe 
that  public  opinion,  within  the  state 
or  within  the  sister  states  would  not 
tolerate  such  action,  yet  we  must  not 
be  blind  to  such  possibilities.  We  need 
only  recall  the  present  anti-Catholic 
movement,  sowing  seeds  of  religious 
bigotry.  What  fruit  this  will  bear 
no  one  can  foretell.  We  may  weigh 
well  the  words  of  Bryce — "Half  of 
the  wars  of  Europe,  half  the  internal 
troubles  that  have  vexed  the  Euro- 
pean States — have  arisen  from  theo- 
logical differences  or  from  rival 
claims  of  church  and  state." 

And  within  the  state  and,  the  small- 
er units  of  the  state,  the  city,  the  at- 
tack on  the  present  status  has  been 
from  two  opposing  sides — one  party 
declares  that  the  separation  of 
church  and  state  is  not  as  complete  as 
it  should  be.  To  uphold  their  ar- 


guments  they  refer  to  the  exemption 
of  church  property  from  taxes;  to 
laws  for  protection  of  a  day  of  rest; 
to  the  anti,-Mormon  legislation;  to 
the  engagement  of  chaplains  for  our 
army  and  navy;  to  the  use  of  chap- 
lains in  our  national  and  state  legis- 
latures; and  to  the  proclamation  of 
an  annual  Thanksgiving  day.  These 
arguments  seem,  at  first  hand,  to  be 
convincing,  but  I  feel  sure  that  they 
simply  reveal  one  deep  human  fact, 
namely,  that  a  complete  separation 
of  religion  from  life  is  impossible: 
that  religion  and  life  are  co-extensive 
.and  our  only  safeguard  is  the  guai 
anteeing  of  equal  religious  opportu- 
nities to  all  American  citizens. 

The  claim  of  others  is  that  our  atti- 
tude is  unchristian,  and  no  true 
Christian  ought  to  countenance  this 
separation  from  the  affairs  of  state 
of  all  that  is  so  vital  in  his  religion. 
Whether  or  not  this  is  a  Christian 
nation  appears  to  me  not  even  a  de- 
batable question  if  we  will  draw  the 
distinction,  which  ought  ever  to  be 
drawn,  whether  it  is  Christian  "de 
jure"  or  "de  facto." 

And  we  must  admit  that  such  an  ar- 
gument is  extremely  superficial.  Is 
the  religious  quality  of  a  people  de- 
termined by  the  phrases  it  places  on 
its  law  books  or  by  the  spirit  of  its 
life?  Is  New  Hampshire  more  Prot- 
estant or  Christian  with  such  terms 
in  its  constitution  than  is  Massachu- 
setts without  them  ?  Or  is  Michigan 
less  religious  than  New  York  because 
it  excludes  the  names  of  deity  from 
its  fundamental  law  while  New  York 
is  'grateful  to  Almighty  God?' 

And  we  have  the  authority  of  a 
treaty  with  Tripoli  concluded  by 
Washington  and  ratified  by  the  sen- 
ate under  John  Adams  (June  7,  1797) 
which  says — "As  the  government  of 
the  United  States  is  not  in  any  sense 


founded  on  the  Christian  religion:  as 
it  has  itself  no  character  of  enmity 
against  the  laws,  religion  or  tran- 
quility  of  Musselmen — it  is  declared 
by  the  parties  that  no  pretext  arising 
from  religious  opinions  shall  ever  pro- 
duce an  interruption  of  harmony  ex- 
isting between  the  two  countries." 

But  some  ask — "Is  not  the  confes- 
sion of  Christ  more  Christian  than 
silence?"  Such  a  question  simply  con- 
founds personal  duties  with  national 
duties,  and  with  those  who  will  not 
draw  a  distinction  we  cannot  argue. 
Throughout  all  our  discussion  about 
the  early  conditions  of  this  country 
and  the  struggle  for  religious  liber- 
ty, there  is  a  "strong  undercurrent 
of  the  need  of  religion  for  human  wel- 
fare" or  as  the  Bill  of  Rights  of 
Massachusetts  properly  puts  it  "the 
happiness  of  a  people  and  the  good 
order  and  preservation  of  civil  gov- 
ernment depend  on  piety,  religion 
and  morality."  And  even  a  superfi- 
cial study  of  history  reveals  the  fact 
that  "irreligion  is  the  sure  precursor 
of  social  decay  and  ruin." 

What  then  is  the  place  of  religion 
in  a  democracy  like  ours?  In  the  first 
place  we  must  stand  for  religious 
freedom  for  every  faith,  no  matter 
how  great  or  how  small,  so  long  as 
the  morality  of  the  faith  is  not  subver- 
sive of  the  standard  of  morality  as 
accepted  in  our  day.  This  does  not 
mean  that  irreligion  is  placed  in  pow- 
er; it  does  not  mean  that  any  relig- 
ion with  a  limiting  adjective  is  placed 
in  control,  but  it  does  mean  that 
Religion  with  a  capital  "R"  has  full 
sway  and  its  sway  it  limited  only  by 
an  honest  regard  for  the  faith  of 
others.  "The  state  has  no  call  to 
make  men  religious  or  moral,  but  its 
highest  duty  is  to  take  care  that  so- 
ciety shall  not  be  disintegrated  by 
irreligion  and  immorality."  - 


There  is  need  of  Religion  in  a  de- 
mocracy. I  firmly  believe  it  has  a 
more  definite  message  and  a  more 
definite  place  in  our  form  of  govern- 
ment than  in  any  other.  Where  the 
faith  of  the  ruler  is  the  faith  of  the 
land,  tradition  builds  its  walls  of  ex- 
clusion and  inclusion.  Though  perse- 
cution may  result  here  and  there,  re- 
ligion has  a  definite  place  in  the  econ- 
omy of  life.  But  our  democracy  rec- 
ognizes no  particular  faith  and  its 
origin  justifies  a  refusal  to  establish 
a  state  church  or  a  national  church. 
Here  the  rights  of  the  minority  must 
be  safeguarded  against  the  possible 
tyranny  of  the  majority,  here  religion, 
while  having  no  stated  position,  can 
wield  an  even  greater  influence. 

In  the  first  place  it  can  create  a  re- 
lation of  mutual  respect  between 
church  and  state.  It  can  develop  that 
finer  sense  of  manhood  which  recog- 
nizes the  dignity  and  rights  of  the  in- 
dividual soul  and,  recognizing  the 
same,  seeks  to  fulfill  the  soul  mes- 
sage in  the  affairs  of  state. 

In  the  second  place,  religion,  being 
strictly  a  personal  matter,  can  so 
wield  and  weld  the  individual  that  he 
will  carry  the  ideals  of  his  faith  into 
the  arena  of  daily  life.  This  is  the 
peculiar  possibility  of  religion  in  a 
democracy  because  the  influence  of 
the  church,  as  a  church,  is  obliterated 
and  substituted  for  this  is  the  indi- 
vidual as  a  religious  being.  When 
grave  national  problems  present 
themselves,  ethical  values  and  impli- 
cations are  weighed,  and  then  each 
individual,  according  to  his  light,  and 
different  individuals  according  to 
their  differing  lights,  may  consider 
the  same  from  all  angles  and  in  com- 
mon, council,  after  due  deliberation, 
decide  upon  a  just  course. 

As   valuable  as  these  differing  re- 


ligious  standards  are  to  a  nation,  just 
so  great  is  the  conservative  influence 
of  religion.  It  is  said  that  religion 
is  extremely  conservative,  that  the 
forms  and  customs  of  the  past  are  its 
sole  guides.  There  is  much  truth  in 
this.  The  truth  therein  makes  it  val- 
uable to  democracy.  Democracies  are 
easily  obsessed  by  the  value  of  ma- 
jorities, follow  every  new  thought  and 
every  new  idea  presented  in  a  con- 
vincing form,  and  are  thus  more  easily 
led  by  demagogism.  Here  religion  with 
its  conservatism  is  of  great  value. 
It  teaches  the  value  of  experience;  it 
proclaims  the  soundness  of  doctrine  or 
dogma  hallowed  by  age;  it  speaks 
with  respect  about  the  fundamentals 
laid  down  by  the  founders  of  the  na- 
tion. And  this  habit  of  thought  must 
not  be  underestimated.  It  is  not  my 
idea  to  proclaim  to  you  the  supreme 
value  of  the  past  and  the  lack  of  all 
values  in  modern  thought,  but  it  is  my 
aim  to  re-emphasize  the  need  of  sym- 
pathetically considering  the  past. 

And  if  I  may  add  to  these  reasons, 
one  other  I  would  say — it  makes  pos- 
sible the  living  together,  working  to- 
gejther  and  dicing  together  of  all  men, 
no  matter  what  their  personal  atti- 
tude toward  the  world's  mystery  may 
be,  because  they  are  united  by  love 
for  a  common  fatherland  and  by  a 
devotion  to  a  common  flag.  Other 
lands  may  have  their  privileged  and 
their  tolerated;  we  have  but  one 
class — that  of  the  free.  Other  lands 
may  imbue  with  a  patriotism  limited 
by  the  rights  of  the  individual;  this 
land  can  inspire  only  an  unlimited  pa- 
triotism for  it  recognizes  no  special 
rights,  gives  no  special  privileges  and 
tolerates  no  separate  views  of  citizen- 
ship but  gives  to  each  and  every  one 
the  same  rights,  the  same  privileges 
and  liberty  instead  of  toleration. 

Experience  has  proven  the  value  of 


this  "lively  experiment"  of  Roger  Wil- 
liams, tried  on  a  national  basis. 
While  here  and  there  men  may  seek 
to  ignore  the  teaching  and  the  experi- 
ence of  the  past,  the  college  men  and 
women,  thoroughly  honest  and  con- 
sistent in  their  personal  religious  life, 
can  guarantee  the  future  by  proclaim- 
ing in  times  of  danger  those  lessons  of 
the  past  which  are  the  only  safeguard 
of  ages  yet  unborn. 

Story  is  right  when  he  tells  us — 
"The  Catholic  and  the  Protestant,  the 
Calvinist  and  the  Armenian,  the  Jew 
and  the  Infidel  may  sit  down  at  a 
common  table  of  the  national  councils 
without  Inquisition  into  their  faith 
and  mode  of  worship,"  and  it  is  for 
the  college  man  and  woman  to  work 
for  the  continued  realization  of  what 
Thomas  F.  Bayard,  while  secretary 
of  state,  said  — "Religious  liberty  is 
the  chief  corner  stone  of  the  American 
system  of  government  and  provisions 
for  its  security  are  embodied  in  the 
written  charter  and  interwoven  in  the 
moral  fabric  of  our  laws."  When 
Religion  and  religions  recognize  this 
fact,  they  will  wield  a  far  greater  in- 
fluence than  would  the  placing  of  the 
name  of  deity  in  our  constitution  or 
the  introduction  of  prayer  and  re- 
ligious songs  into  our  public  schools. 


.  GE  CALIF,  LIBRARY,  LOS  A 


A     000  075  259     2 


